Dixon v The King - [2025] NZHC 1813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-000011

[2025] NZHC 1813

BETWEEN
ELLIOT ROBERT DIXON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 25 June 2025

Counsel:

M L Jepson and E J Saunders for Appellant K A Dillon for Respondent

Judgment:

3 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2025 at 4 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Mark Jepson (Hamilton) for Appellant Hamilton Legal (Hamilton) for Respondent

DIXON v R [2025] NZHC 1813 [3 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Dixon appeals his sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed on him by Judge R J Collins on 20 February 20251 in respect of three charges:

(a)causing death while driving with evidence of an excess of a controlled drug;2

(b)causing injury while driving with evidence of an excess of a controlled drug;3 and

(c)failure to carry out obligations in relation to an electronic search.4

[2] I must allow Mr Dixon’s appeal if I find that the Judge erred and that a different sentence should be imposed.5 If, as Mr Dixon contends, the sentence is manifestly excessive then that would be an error I would have to correct. The errors alleged as grounds of appeal are:

2.1.Identifying an excessive start point;

2.2.Giving an insufficient guilty plea discount of 20 per cent;

2.3.Giving no discount for previous good character;

2.4.Giving insufficient discounts for youth (10 per cent ), remorse (5 per cent) and prospects of rehabilitation (5 per cent); and

2.5.Making the determination that even if other discounts were available, a discount beyond 40 per cent would not be afforded.

[3] Ms Saunders, for Mr Dixon, submits that the end sentence should be a short term of imprisonment, which should be commuted to a sentence of home detention to a rehabilitative institution, namely GraceGate.

1      R v Dixon [2025] NZDC 3475.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(2)(b)(i) and 61(3AA); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000.
3      Section 61(2)(b)(i) and 61(3); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$20,000.
4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 130(1) and 178; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

The sentencing

[4] Judge Collins set out the facts on which he assessed his sentence:

[7] You and your victim, Melissa, had been in a relationship for about four weeks from late December 2023. From other reports, the forensic report and so on, it may have been a little bit longer than that but you had been in a relationship with her for, as relationships go, a relatively short period of time. That does not diminish for a moment. I accept how strongly you felt towards her. In any event, at around 10 to eight on the Saturday 27 January 2024 you were the driver of your Toyota motor vehicle and she was the passenger. You advised the police that you were heading from Raglan back into Hamilton after…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dixon v The King

Details

AGLC: Dixon v The King [2025] NZHC 1813
Case: [2025] NZHC 1813
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dixon appeals his sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Collins for causing death while driving with evidence of an excess of a controlled drug, causing injury while driving with evidence of an excess of a controlled drug, and failing to carry out obligations in relation to an electronic search. The appeal contends that the Judge erred by identifying an excessive start point, giving an insufficient guilty plea discount, giving no discount for previous good character, giving insufficient discounts for youth, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation, and making the determination that a discount beyond 40 per cent would not be afforded. Ms Saunders argues that the sentence should be reduced to a term of imprisonment, which should be commuted to a sentence of home detention. The Crown submits that the starting point of five years’ imprisonment was within range and the Judge’s discounts were supported.

Brewer J considered the seriousness of the offence, the manner of driving, and the level of THC in Dixon’s blood. The court found that Dixon’s driving was not egregious, but the blood concentration level was well above the high-risk threshold. The court found that the Judge’s starting point of five years was at the upper end of the available range, but not outside it. The court considered the discounts given by the Judge and found that they were within the Judge’s discretion. The court found that the end sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders